| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
| Date: | 2019-08-23 15:38:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20190823153825.GA11405@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Aug-23, Asim R P wrote:
> As part of the fault injector patch set [1], I added a new "blocking"
> keyword to isolation grammar so that a step can be declared as blocking.
> See patch 0002-Add-syntax-to-declare-a-step-that-is-expected-to-block.
One point to that implementation is that in that design a step is
globally declared to be blocking, but in reality that's the wrong way to
see things: a step might block in some permutations and not others. So
I think we should do as Michael suggested: it's the permutation that has
to have a way to mark a given step as blocking, not the step itself.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-08-23 15:40:23 | Re: Hstore OID bigger than an integer |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-08-23 15:19:00 | Re: XPRS |